Talk:Gear/Archive02
Current This is for current Issues under discussion. Archives are in Talk:Gear/Archive01 Table layout The Set listing has grown immensely with the introduction of new sets. Would it be useful to split the table into smaller tables, grouped by level? I'd group low level sets like Adventurer/Gobball together, then mid-level sets like Tree/Scara/Kwak/Prespic, then high-level sets like Farle/Royal. --GrauGeist 22:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :I actually prefer the purely alphabetical listing... even if I don't know the level I can find the set in an instant. Also since a lot of sets have items of a varying levels, wouldn't any table divisions by level be somewhat arbitrary anyway? - Myllie 28 May 2006 ::It is alpha within level group. While somewhat arbitrary, the mid-level Sets clump together pretty well, forming a fairly cohesive block, so that roughly comparable sets can be seen one screen at a time. With pure alpha, it's hard to compare sets directly unless you have a huge monitor. --GrauGeist 09:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :::While being able to compare sets this way is useful, it is only __one__ of many uses of this page. If I'm not sure which block contains the set I'm looking for, I have to check each individually, which is irritatingly inconvenient. I never had any problems comparing sets the way it was before. I appreciate the effort, but I'd like to see it changed back. - Shagbark 29 May 2006 Why are we listing all items in all sets on the main set page? - Dashiva 23:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :Because it makes it a LOT easier to see what sets and partial sets are compatible with each other. Not everybody does things on a complete set basis, so this is much more useful than forcing people to go to each indvidual set to see what they can use or mix. - GrauGeist :: If you are to compare sets, you have to know the effects of the items and the partial and complete set bonuses. This already requires that you visit the set pages. Using a template like you suggest below would further aggravate the problem by forcing people to visit individual item pages to get useful info. Quite simply, just knowing which item slots are in use by which sets is nowhere near enough info, especially not when some sets are actually better as partial than complete. - Dashiva 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :::This isn't to do set-by-set comparisons. It's a top-level index that makes it easier for people to know what items are potentially usable and/or would fit with a theme or set. People would have to go to do the detail checking for, say, a half-dozen pages instead of 20-odd. It is clearly better than not having the index. - GrauGeist :::Example, suppose you are a lv. 25 Str Cra with a partial Gob set (no lining or cape), and 2nd Ring available. With the index, it is MUCH easier to narrow potential items down which could give a 2nd partial set bonus. - GrauGeist :::: By checking set level and type you can reduce it to 2-3 sets. When checking for sets with three given pieces, you'd probably find 20-odd. Besides, the set page is not meant for looking up items, we can make a separate page for that if you feel the need exists. - Dashiva 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Item info on set pages I came across a problem while working on the Treechnid Set article. Since each item will already get its own page, what information about the items is necessary to put on the set page, and what can be left out and reserved for only the individual item pages? -ClockworkPunk 04:36, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC) : I would like to convert the Set pages to use a standard Set_List template of Type | Item_Name | Level | Note, with standardized order of Amulet, Belt, Boots, Cloak, Hat, Ring, Weapon. This would take a lot less space and more clearly show what items are missing. The Item pages would use a standard item template. While there would be considerable content overlap, the Item pages would be searchable for specific effects, e.g. Strength Bonus Items, Rings. - GrauGeist :: The total effect of the set and pieces is far too useful to remove from the set pages. The overlap problem can handled in other ways; I have some ideas for a selective-inclusion template that would avoid redundance while maintaining usefulness. - Dashiva 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Order inside the Set pages Is there an order on the items inside the sets like first Lining, then amulet, then weapon ... and so on? --Cizagna : Not yet, but their could / should be. I've wanted to convert these to a Table with standard rows: (Amulet, Belt, Boots, Cloak, Hat, Ring, Weapon), and standard columns or sub-rows: (level, effects, conditions, notes). --GrauGeist 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC) : BTW, this is essentially similar to the above. --GrauGeist 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :: No No, I thinkg i did not explain my self well... (sorry) the "set" pages is fine because we have one with name of the set (order alphabetical) and separated in groups (by Lv.). There is another page with order purely by Lv. (Lv. determinate by the highest Lv. requiremente of an equipment in the set), also the items are order in alphabetical order ( Amulet, Belt, Boots, Cloak, Hat, Ring, Weapon, Shield). What I mean is "inside each individual set page" ej: inside the Boar Set (Ring, Boots, Belt), and in the Arachnee Set (Hat, Weapon, Belt, Ring), and so on with other pages. So that's where I want to know if there is a fixed order for the sub-pages. Cizagna 14:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::: There is no standard order for the individual Set Items on the Set Pages. If there is any consistency, it's probably because the page was created after, or based on something existing (e.g. Gobball Set). --GrauGeist 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :: Im getting confuse in a glass of water. The problem "Items info on the set pages" goes to "what info to put" of each item on the sets pages. And your answer goes to designing templates. While your answer could satisfy mine, my question goes for the order of the information, if there is a standart order. Now you and Dashiva looks like working on templates, but for now we could unite the look of each page individualy while the templates are implemented, get my point? Cizagna 14:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::: If there were a template, like the Spells, there would automatically be a standard order. Right now, I think that alphabetical by item type ( Amulet, Belt, Boots, Cloak, Hat, Ring, Weapon, Pet, Shield) would be the best approach. --GrauGeist 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Shield -> Other I'm thinking it would be best to change the "Shield" column to "Other" so that we can link the Bwaks directly. Comments? --GrauGeist 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC) :I think it would be clearer to show a Pet column, especially since there are 5 sets with pets now. That would make the chart even wider, so to alleviate that I suggest abbreviating the column headings, such as "Amu" instead of "Amulet", "Weap" instead of "Weapon", and so on. --TaviRider 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC) :To make the tablelayout slimmer, use Icons instead of coloum-names. Table vs. Non-table Layouts There appears to be two different layouts for the sets, with tables (see Crackler Set and without tables (see Aerdala Set). Is there a reason for this? Should they be changed one way or the other? If yes I would go with the table layout. --Scyth02 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC) : Essentially, Cizagna started converting the set pages to the table form (the base form is here), but stopped because of this discussion. //Peet talk | mod 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) :: Cizagna has more important things to focus on so if there are no objections I will try to wrap it up over the next couple of days. If someone would start from the bottom of the list while I work from the top that would be helpful. --Scyth02 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC) : But there not definitive answer on the Damage link problem, any way if you want you can do it just have to change all the "-" for "~" as its better to do the replace before you put the table, it would be better if you use the "set order by lvl" because in the normal one its the new sets and ppl are sort of constant editing so i leave it until its more settle. --Cizagna (Talk) 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Notes There are some sets listed as being of a certain element when they actually do not give a boost to such an element. For example, the Crow set is listed as being an agility set. It has *one* piece that gives agility and the set bonus does not contribute to such. In fact there is no common thread between the set pieces and the only real set bonus is +damage. :Cleaned up. -- Fogleg 10:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)